The Big Bang Theory

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just wondering what the forums think about this issue in relation to the existence of God.

[bunny]

Personally I dont think it has any bearing one way or the other. If God exists, it seems that the Big Bang was the way he did it. If he doesnt then there was some other reason for its occurrence.

[Chips_]

By itself the idea of the Universe having a beginning is neither evidence for or against God. Questions of creation are best handled by gathering evidence within the Universe as to whether it looks like there was intelligence behind it.

I do not believe in the Big Bang Theory as expressed here beyond a reasonable doubt. I think it is a good theory, but I think the jury is still out on whether it is beyond a reasonable doubt. We have very much to learn I suspect about the history of the Universe.

[godBoy]

I think it points in favour of God..
It points towards a finite universe - and an eternal cause that existed before it.
But then I may be just drawing in between the dots where I already have presuppositions that are affecting my thoughts here.
I agree with Chips - It's not 100% certain but it is the best theory that we have managed to come up with at this point in time.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
By itself the idea of the Universe having a beginning is neither evidence for or against God. Questions of creation are best handled by gathering evidence within the Universe as to whether it looks like there was intelligence behind it.

[/ QUOTE ]
The trouble with this is that if there was not intelligence behind it there's no way to say how it would look. Thus looking like there is intelligence behind it is also not evidence for or against - perhaps it just happened that way. A single occurrence cant tell you anything in itself about the probability of it occurring by chance.

[godBoy]

I don't follow this path of thinking bunny, "A single occurrence cant tell you anything in itself about the probability of it occurring by chance."

I understand the point well. However, This statement has been used to 'explain away' all of the freak occurences that we find in the small part of the universe that we can see.
I think that if measure after measure reveals a strikingly freakishness to the universe it should carry some weight.

I guess a strong part of this argument is the creationist arguments of the fine-tuning of the universe (physical constants being just right for life). I don't see how one can easily dispose of these arguments.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't follow this path of thinking bunny, "A single occurrence cant tell you anything in itself about the probability of it occurring by chance."

I understand the point well. However, This statement has been used to 'explain away' all of the freak occurences that we find in the small part of the universe that we can see.
I think that if measure after measure reveals a strikingly freakishness to the universe it should carry some weight.

[/ QUOTE ]
The question I would ask is how do you know it is freakish? Allow the possibility for a moment that the universe "just happened" - Perhaps it is extremely unlikely that the universe would look like it does, perhaps not. Observing the universe as it exists cant answer how likely it is that it would look that way by chance.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess a strong part of this argument is the creationist arguments of the fine-tuning of the universe (physical constants being just right for life). I don't see how one can easily dispose of these arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]
The (weak) anthropic principle disposes of these arguments well enough for me - it is no puzzle that an intelligent being pondering the world it finds itself in will necessarily find itself in a universe conducive to that being's formation and continued existence.

I do think that the remarkable "fine tuning" (although I object to that phrase as it seems to subtly presuppose design) points to something deep about the laws of physics - perhaps things that look independant currently are in fact related...who can say at this stage? I dont think you can successfully make an argument that because they are specially well suited to our existence they must have been designed that way on purpose.

[Andrew Karpinski]

While I understand the scientific evidence for the big bang is better than anything else at the moment, doesn't anyone else find it really [censored] weird?

[bunny]

I dont find it weird as such - just incomplete. It doesnt answer the why or how questions but perhaps that's because they dont have an answer.

[jgorham]

Where did you get that quote from Reef? The second and third sentences are inaccurate.

[godBoy]

These physical constant are universal.. as far as we know.
It isn't simply a case of "Well life exists here, so no wonder that the physical constants are conducive to life"

No life anywhere would be possible without the precise values of these universal constants.

A couple of freakish things are,
The priveleged planet we are on.
- [very brief]The size, temperature, placed in a safe zone in the milky way..
The physical constants
- force of gravity, the nuclear force..

I don't see why you can't work backwards here and look to what they suggest.

[godBoy]

This 'wierdness' - or more to the point - what it suggests, has driven some scientists to come up with other theories to explain life's origin.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The priveleged planet we are on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look instead of making statements like this godboy. It is extremely annoying. You have absolutely zilcho evidence of the "privilege" of this planet!

The same applies to your other points.

[Andrew Karpinski]

[ QUOTE ]
This 'wierdness' - or more to the point - what it suggests, has driven some scientists to come up with other theories to explain life's origin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but they tend to be pretty crappy, no? I read this cool book called "The Big Bang Never Happened" where the guy was talking about some sort of plasma steady state thing, but it turns out he was using pretty heavily incorrect data.

[godBoy]

From what we have observed in science Midge,
We can see that the planet is indeed priveledged. I'm looking and i'm very amazed at what I what I see. Perhaps you could 'look' too.

[godBoy]

The Big Bang is the best theory that we have managed to come up with at this point in time.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
From what we have observed in science Midge,
We can see that the planet is indeed priveledged. I'm looking and i'm very amazed at what I what I see. Perhaps you could 'look' too.

[/ QUOTE ]

My field of vision is much wider than yours, it seems. How many planets are you looking at?

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
Where did you get that quote from Reef? The second and third sentences are inaccurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

www.big-bang-theory.com/

[Metric]

In my opinion, the most freakish thing of all is the current thermodynamic state of the universe, which is extremely far from a state of maximum entropy. Random fluctuations lead to such "out of equilibrium" states roughly one time in 10^10^123.

The anthropic principle is also insufficient to explain this state of affairs -- life could exist in a universe that was "out of equilibrium" by a factor of 10^10^70 which is roughly 10^10^123 times more probable that what we actually observe.

Whether or not this points to God is a judgement call, of course. It certainly points to something profound.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, the most freakish thing of all is the current thermodynamic state of the universe, which is extremely far from a state of maximum entropy. Random fluctuations lead to such "out of equilibrium" states roughly one time in 10^10^123.

The anthropic principle is also insufficient to explain this state of affairs -- life could exist in a universe that was "out of equilibrium" by a factor of 10^10^70 which is roughly 10^10^123 times more probable that what we actually observe.

Whether or not this points to God is a judgement call, of course. It certainly points to something profound.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can this not be explained by the fact that the universe is constrained by laws which govern what thermodynamic state it is in? In a structured, "law-abiding" universe I would intuitively expect it to be a long way from what I would get in a random universe.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
These physical constant are universal.. as far as we know.
It isn't simply a case of "Well life exists here, so no wonder that the physical constants are conducive to life"

No life anywhere would be possible without the precise values of these universal constants.

[/ QUOTE ]
What I mean is - imagine there are countless infinities of universes, all popping into existence in some huge metauniverse, all with differing values for their fundamental constants. Now examine this enormous multiverse and look at the very, very, very small fraction of them which contain life. What do sentients in these universes notice? That the fundamental constants in their universes are exactly balanced to enable them to exist. How is this a surprise?

[ QUOTE ]
A couple of freakish things are,
The priveleged planet we are on.
- [very brief]The size, temperature, placed in a safe zone in the milky way..
The physical constants
- force of gravity, the nuclear force..

I don't see why you can't work backwards here and look to what they suggest.

[/ QUOTE ]
The first point I would make is that, even if you look back to "see what they suggest" you dont know how likely it is that it would happen that way if the universe was created by accident (I dont mean randomly, I mean naturalistically with no intelligent purpose).

With regard to Earth's privileged nature - the anthropic principle answers this adequately in my mind. There are many, many more inhospitable places than hospitable ones, true. Nonetheless, if life arose through the chance workings of natural, mindless forces it would necessarily be in those hospitable places. The world must be suited to our existence (however we got here) or else we wouldnt exist to wonder about it.

[bigpooch]

To be honest, I don't think it should really have any
effect whatsoever on a rational theist, assuming that all
of the terms in the OP are described rather precisely or
the meaning of the sentences are understood clearly.

-------
"The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened
at the very beginning of our universe."

I see no difficulty in that. Of course, you have to
consider some of the problems with the Big Bang
cosmological model:

a) The flatness problem
b) The horizon problem
c) The magnetic monopole problem

As a result, one should think of an inflationary universe
before the "big bang" or a "modified big bang".

A good summary is presented at:

http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo4.html

-------
"Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a
reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a
beginning."

Okay, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is good since the "fact"
is something believed to be the case based on the
evidence. Here, "fact" does not mean it is undeniably the
case, but rather that our present understanding of
cosmology seems to indicate that our physical universe had
a beginning.

Similarly, a theist would also have no problem with the
statement in view of the first verse of Holy Writ:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1)

The major monotheisms would agree that the physical cosmos
had a beginning. The above reference comes from the Torah,
but even a devout Muslim could not disagree with this
statement. Now, of course, some Jewish rabbis and
practitioners of biblical hermeneutics may dispute the "In
the beginning" since the koine Greek translation (from the
Septuagint) of the original Hebrew may not be precise and
brings with it the notion of a "beginning" with respect to
time whereas the orignal Hebrew text literally does not.

Some readers may even dispute that this statement is even
true; nevertheless, there is no difficulty for a rational
monotheist even if this statement were true.

-------
"Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after
that moment there was something: our universe. "

Spoken like a dogmatic empricist! I think to say that
"absolutely nothing existed" would be heretical, if not
blasphemous, not only to a rational theist, but also to a
mathematical realist and Platonist!

Here, something is stated that neither science, philosophy
and perhaps not even religion can really speak resolutely
about! "Prior to that moment" suggests that before the
existence of the physical universe (with time as part of
the geometry of space-time), time existed! Well, if time
did exist before that moment, then something did exist -
namely, "time". On the other hand, in our understanding of
the cosmos, "time" did not necessarily exist before that
moment. So, I think a clarification of the word "prior"
needs to be made so that there is an understanding that if
the moment of the "beginning of our physical universe" is
at time T=0, "Prior" DOES NOT mean at a time T<0 because
"whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"!

What about "existence" and "nothingness"? Did they exist?
It's better to say, "there was (physically) nothing". For
example, almost all mathematicians and logicians (and
perhaps most rational philosophers!) would agree that no
matter what cosmos exists, the theorems of number theory
would also be true. Truth does exist in any cosmos (I am
using this term "cosmos" generally and not necessarily
implying any physical universe) and thus, one could also
argue that IN ANY CONCEIVABLE COSMOS, for any positive
integers x, y and z, it CAN NOT be the case that (x^3) +
(y^3) = (z^3). Also, in any conceivable cosmos, for any
statement S (defined explicitly and precisely), it is not
the case that both S and (not S) are true. On the the
other hand, one can make a statement such as "If the
continuum hypothesis (CH) is true, ..." even if it is not
the case that CH is true (Kurt Godel believed strongly that
CH is false and Paul Cohen, the logician who showed that CH
cannot be proven from ZFC = the usual axioms of set theory
PLUS the axiom of choice, did not believe CH to be true).

So to say that nothing existed is fine as long as
"existence" is applied to a certain class of objects,
namely physical entities or time and space (actually, the
notions of absolute time and space may be metaphysical
constructs and not necessarily "realities" of this cosomos;
unfortunately, after Newtonian mechanics, the "dogma" of
absolute time and absolute space reigned despite Leibniz's
clarity in understanding that temporal-spatial measurements
are relative until Einstein's time!).

On the other hand, to say that "nothing at all existed" is
not true for all entities if every conceivable (and
nonconceivable) entity is included. In fact, the
influential German/American theologian and existential
philosopher Paul Tillich had stated:

"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and
existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny
him."

[This Tillich quotation summarizes his conception of God.
He does not think of God as a being which exists in time
and space, because that constrains God, and makes God
finite. But all beings are finite, and if God is the
Creator of all beings, God cannot logically be finite since
a finite being cannot be the sustainer of an infinite
variety of finite things. Thus God is considered beyond
being, above finitude and limitation, the power or essence
of being itself.] - from Wikipedia article on Paul Tillich.

Now, God doesn't MERELY exist. To Tillich, finite beings
are sustained by the "ground of being" which he identifies
as God (which is why Tillich is so misunderstood by many
"believers"). It's probably simpler to think of what
Tillich said rather than the Leibnizian Monadology which
may be more difficult to accept. [On the other hand, of
Leibniz's seven fundamental philosophical principles,
a) Sufficient Reason, b) Optimism and c) Plenitude are
positive principles to reflect upon.]

To those who contemplate the Scriptures as well, in the
account in Exodus (notably Exodus 3:13) of Moses and the
"Burning Bush", God's name "I AM WHO I AM" (or "I WILL BE
WHAT I WILL BE") reveals part of His Nature. In the New
Testament, the first chapter of the book of Hebrews states
plainly the prominence of that famous rabbi Yeshua bin
Yosef. Also, the prologue of the Johannine gospel speaks
eloquently about the "Incarnate Logos" through whom all
"things" came into being.

[Lestat]

Wow, good stuff bunny

[Andrew Karpinski]

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, the most freakish thing of all is the current thermodynamic state of the universe, which is extremely far from a state of maximum entropy. Random fluctuations lead to such "out of equilibrium" states roughly one time in 10^10^123.

The anthropic principle is also insufficient to explain this state of affairs -- life could exist in a universe that was "out of equilibrium" by a factor of 10^10^70 which is roughly 10^10^123 times more probable that what we actually observe.

Whether or not this points to God is a judgement call, of course. It certainly points to something profound.

[/ QUOTE ]

On a simliar note, there are 6 numbers, fundamental values that decide the material in the universe, how tight atomic nuclei bind together, etc. If these numbers were slightly different, the universe would be radically different and most likely non life sustaining.

This indicates to me not that their some divine creator but rather a ton of different universes.

[madnak]

How do you know those "6 numbers" are the only ones that will work? To me the idea that no other universe could contain life is similar in almost every way to the idea that no other planet could contain life. Your positions on the two issues seem contradictory so I'd like to know where you think the difference arises from.

[godBoy]

The multi-verse theory is interesting indeed, but not based on any known fact. It's is purely hypothetical.. And extremely 'out there'. Ockhams razor is a valuable tool here - this theory shouldn't carry much weight at the present time.
The anthropic principle doesn't answer anything it just disposes of valuable thought IMO.

[siegfriedandroy]

you believe you are more intelligent than u are. purely my conjecture, based on reading several sentences. how well do u know greek?

[siegfriedandroy]

most of those who espouse the big bang theory know very little about origins (similar to those who espouse evolutionary theory of origins). fools love to hear themselves speak. most of u are intellectually bankrupt, but for the few that are not, ah too drunk to finish

[bigpooch]

To be honest, the only verse of the NT that I can write in
Greek (even the pronounciation of koine Greek words is
debatable) is John 1:1, although I did study some NT
Greek. Now, with lexicons and interlinear texts, it's easy
to be lazy.

What does "en arche" (NT Greek) actually mean? Is that the
question you are essentially asking? And how does it
compare with "Bereshit" (Hebrew "...beginning...") ?

When someone (in the first or second century C.E.) reads the
text of John 1:1 from the Greek, isn't he immediately
confronted with the creation account in Genesis?

Whether the koine Greek actually implies a beginning, I had
read somewhere that it does. I can only conjecture that you
see it differently.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
Can this not be explained by the fact that the universe is constrained by laws which govern what thermodynamic state it is in? In a structured, "law-abiding" universe I would intuitively expect it to be a long way from what I would get in a random universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that one of those laws (and probably the most successful of them all) is statistical mechanics, which predicts that thermodynamic states closer to maximum entropy are FAR more likely to be observed (unless an external agent does something to put a constraint on the allowed states). This is precisely why this is such a puzzle -- stat-mech makes an extremely reasonable statement essentially saying that there is no "preferred" region of phase space -- something that is terribly violated when you look at the thermodynamic state of the universe.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can this not be explained by the fact that the universe is constrained by laws which govern what thermodynamic state it is in? In a structured, "law-abiding" universe I would intuitively expect it to be a long way from what I would get in a random universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that one of those laws (and probably the most successful of them all) is statistical mechanics, which predicts that thermodynamic states closer to maximum entropy are FAR more likely to be observed (unless an external agent does something to put a constraint on the allowed states). This is precisely why this is such a puzzle -- stat-mech makes an extremely reasonable statement essentially saying that there is no "preferred" region of phase space -- something that is terribly violated when you look at the thermodynamic state of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]
What I meant was that the law of gravity is essentially an external thing imposed on the universe which forces matter to accumulate, the other laws make stars, novas, the process repeats, etc etc. Doesnt this (or something like it) go someway to providing an answer?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The multi-verse theory is interesting indeed, but not based on any known fact. It's is purely hypothetical.. And extremely 'out there'. Ockhams razor is a valuable tool here - this theory shouldn't carry much weight at the present time.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you have misunderstood me - I am not asking you to believe these universes physically exist, merely conceptually so. The only way to evaluate a probability is to do this. You are claiming that a universe being so neatly suited to life is improbable if it was not designed. The only way to test this claim is to look at all possible universes with life in them and see what the chances are. Lo and behold, any universe with sentient life must be conducive to life arising and continuing to exist (whether designed or "accidental").

I am not advocating belief in these worlds as physically real, they are abstract entities (in my view).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The multi-verse theory is interesting indeed, but not based on any known fact. It's is purely hypothetical.. And extremely 'out there'. Ockhams razor is a valuable tool here - this theory shouldn't carry much weight at the present time.

[/ QUOTE ]
As usual ockham cuts both ways. It can be argued that as we have no theory (or need for a theory) that forces only one universe, then by ockham's razor there is nothing that dictates one universe as opposed to many.

The only reason for arguing for the special case of one universe is ego.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The multi-verse theory is interesting indeed, but not based on any known fact. It's is purely hypothetical.. And extremely 'out there'. Ockhams razor is a valuable tool here - this theory shouldn't carry much weight at the present time.

[/ QUOTE ]
As usual ockham cuts both ways. It can be argued that as we have no theory (or need for a theory) that forces only one universe, then by ockham's razor there is nothing that dictates one universe as opposed to many.

The only reason for arguing for the special case of one universe is ego.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think this is right. Ockham's razor suggests choosing the ontologically simpler theory, no? That would give weight to choosing the 1 universe vs an infinite number of them.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think this is right. Ockham's razor suggests choosing the ontologically simpler theory, no? That would give weight to choosing the 1 universe vs an infinite number of them.


[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding would be that the simpler ontological theory would be the one that posits many different (ie no special or unique) possible environments for life, including the one here, in this very small corner of this universe. Of course, that may require enlarging the concept of life, or its manifestations, so as not to be strictly restricted to the ones found in this very small part of this universe.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The multi-verse theory is interesting indeed, but not based on any known fact. It's is purely hypothetical.. And extremely 'out there'. Ockhams razor is a valuable tool here - this theory shouldn't carry much weight at the present time.

[/ QUOTE ]
As usual ockham cuts both ways. It can be argued that as we have no theory (or need for a theory) that forces only one universe, then by ockham's razor there is nothing that dictates one universe as opposed to many.

The only reason for arguing for the special case of one universe is ego.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think this is right. Ockham's razor suggests choosing the ontologically simpler theory, no? That would give weight to choosing the 1 universe vs an infinite number of them.

[/ QUOTE ]
But 1 of something possibly is no more ontologically simple than many of it. There's no reason to believe only one universe exists without a new ontological idea that somehow restricts to 1.

If we apply Ockhams razor in a way that says that if we only have evidence of 1 therefore there's unlikely to be more than 1 then the razor has been profoundly unsuccesful and should be junked.

chez

[Andrew Karpinski]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you know those "6 numbers" are the only ones that will work? To me the idea that no other universe could contain life is similar in almost every way to the idea that no other planet could contain life. Your positions on the two issues seem contradictory so I'd like to know where you think the difference arises from.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first number is the ratio of the strength of electrical force that hold atoms together divided by the force of gravity between them. It is very large and if it were a few zero's shorter only a very short lived universe could exist (meaning no biological evolution).



The second number is also a ratio and is the proportion of energy that is released when hydrogen fuses into helium. This number is 0.007, and if it were 0.006 or 0.008 we could not exist.

The third number, also a ratio, relates the actual density of matter in the universe to a "critical" density. At first sight this number appears to be about 0.4. If this ratio were too high the universe would have collapsed long ago: if too low, galaxies or stars would not have formed.

The fifth number is the ratio of the energy required to break apart a galaxy compared to its "rest mass energy" and is about 10-5. If this ratio were smaller the universe would be inert and structureless: if much larger the universe would be so violent that no stars or sun systems could survive.

most of this info was stolen from here (http://www.eclectica.org/v4n2/skea_rees.html)

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
The multi-verse theory is interesting indeed, but not based on any known fact. It's is purely hypothetical.. And extremely 'out there'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ironic that you don't carry this same skepticism when it comes to your precious book which also presents an unsupported "out there" theory of the universe (and beyond).

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
This 'wierdness' - or more to the point - what it suggests, has driven some scientists to come up with other theories to explain life's origin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like a Holy Trinity?

[godBoy]

The bible has some very strange things indeed. But my interest isn't in christianity and The bible, it is simply in God himself. I have found that I find God through this medium and continue to do so.. The notion of God isn't 'out there', most see the need for something at the other end of eternity.
I'd also like to think that i've asked those pesky questions regarding my particular faith. I don't have all the answers i'm looking for just yet - but all in all it seems to be quite a plausible theory /images/graemlins/smile.gif But hey, we're talking about the big bang.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
most see the need for something at the other end of eternity

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that most see that need, doesn't make it a need!

[ QUOTE ]
But my interest isn't in christianity and The bible,

[/ QUOTE ]

Good boy!

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
On a simliar note, there are 6 numbers, fundamental values that decide the material in the universe, how tight atomic nuclei bind together, etc. If these numbers were slightly different, the universe would be radically different and most likely non life sustaining.

This indicates to me not that their some divine creator but rather a ton of different universes.

[/ QUOTE ]
While I agree that this fact means something, I think one needs to be careful to avoid ascribing causality in this way (eg ...there are 6 numbers, fundamental values that decide the material in the universe...) The universe exists and we have modelled it using mathematics. Perhaps, under a new model, these values wont be so fundamental - perhaps they will all depend on one or two values in some "deeper" theory.

I repeat that I think the finely balanced nature of the universe's constitution is interesting and means something - I would hesitate to make any claims about the likelihood of this occurring though. We just dont know enough about the world to say for sure that they are independent.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Like a Holy Trinity?

[/ QUOTE ]

The big bang doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Just a beginning from nothing.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
What I meant was that the law of gravity is essentially an external thing imposed on the universe which forces matter to accumulate, the other laws make stars, novas, the process repeats, etc etc. Doesnt this (or something like it) go someway to providing an answer?

[/ QUOTE ]
Gravity is certainly a big player in these issues, but thinking of it as an external thing is a bit strange. Gravity has "local degrees of freedom" like any other field theory, so there is no obvious reason to think that they should be immune to statistical arguments -- in fact, the formation of a black hole can be thought of as gravitational statistical mechanics in action -- a lower entropy state moving irreversably to a higher entropy state.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Gravity is certainly a big player in these issues, but thinking of it as an external thing is a bit strange. Gravity has "local degrees of freedom" like any other field theory, so there is no obvious reason to think that they should be immune to statistical arguments -- in fact, the formation of a black hole can be thought of as gravitational statistical mechanics in action -- a lower entropy state moving irreversably to a higher entropy state.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sloppy language on my part - I didnt mean to say gravity was external to the universe in some sense, I meant the fact that gravity exists is a constraint on how the universe can be. All my physics was done over ten years ago so I may have just got hold of the wrong end of the stick...

I understood your initial point to be that the universe is in an extremely unlikely thermodynamic state. My intended response was that that state is a result of a number of limitations on how the universe can evolve from whatever its initial state was. These limitations seem "imposed from outside" in the sense that nothing within the universe can cause the laws of physics to hold. They either do or they dont. The fact that there are laws governing the universe seems like a significant constraint on what state the universe can be in.